Is occams razor "double edged"?

[GrowingSmaller]

I have normally thought it to be single edged, meaning that strong atheism (God does not exist) is supported as it seems to be the simpler theory. For instance we might argue the natural may exist and then deny everything else on grounds of simplicity or parsimony.

But is that correct use of Occam's principle?

I thought: maybe "multiplying entities beyond need" which Occam advises us against means not only do not posit existent things (like Gods) without need, but also do not posit their non-existence without need?


So we are left not with an "strongly" atheistic scientific universe (so called strong atheists deny the existence of God, whereas the weak ones simply lack belief in God- see wikipedia for details).

No, rather we have one where... - [in principio (without considering further arguments)] -...one where science utilising Occam remains silent. Uncommitted either way.

Disposed to neither affirm nor deny. Such that science becomes atheistic in the weak sense of lacking belief in the existence of God. Yet also an-atheistic to coin a term, meaning lacking belief in the non existence of God (lacking belief in "not-God") too?


So the concept of 'double edged' means that Occams razor condemns not only the multiplication of existents, but also condemns the multiplication of non-existents where this is not theoretically useful and justified.

So under this lens, all else being equal given the data at hand, positing this as a universe not containing hidden angels by the trillion becomes just as imparsimonious as a universe of hidden angels in their trillions. The true solution is to not posit either way (i.e neither posit A or not-A) rather than take sides on extra-theoretical metaphysics...*

Is that in the spirit of Occam's razor?

Or if it is not classically considered double edged, has it just been snapped...? Thanks in advance for constructive thoughts...

*after all if neither option (A and not-A) make any difference to theory, then A is not empirically justified to be either asserted or denied a posteriori as neither option adds explanatory power or enhances pragmatic utility. And a priori, we have no logical justification to either include or exclude A either. No, the correct opinion ought to be neutral rather than unfairly biased in either direction without, strictly speaking, having adequate rational warrant. Hmmmm....

 

[Conscious Z]

I'm going to dodge the spirit of your question just a tad for an aside: First, wouldn't such an interpretation limit the explanatory power of OR, thus making it less useful? Second, can OR really tell us anything about the existence of a god or gods? After all, it's purpose is to distinguish between hypotheses that are equally-supported by evidence and have already passed other types of scrutiny. The question of god's existence is not such an issue -- therefore, OR wouldn't be applicable.

OR is a "tie-breaker"....throwing it out there in the middle of the game is giving it too much power.

It's also easy to misuse OR by adjusting what entities are being counted. Galileo famously claimed that we can construct just about any theory using only the letters of the alphabet! While that's a joke, the sentiment is true: sometimes ontologically simple explanations are actually quite complex, yet some ontologically complex theories (theism generally) are actually quite simple.

 

[Giberoo]

I thought: maybe "multiplying entities beyond need" which Occam advises us against means not only do not posit existent things (like Gods) without need, but also do not posit their non-existence without need?

With respect, you are wrong here. Occam's Razor does lead us to actively assume the non-existence of everything until given reason to believe otherwise.

An example: I assume the world is run through entirely regular, natural laws. My brother might assume it is run by a God who operates through those regular natural laws.

Objectively no evidence could tell our hypothese apart - everywhere we look we would merely see evidence of natural laws. So functionally our hypothese are indistinguishable. But using the principle of Occam's Razor, mine is to be preferred since it is simpler - that is, it assumes the existence of fewer entities.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

With respect, you are wrong here. Occam's Razor does lead us to actively assume the non-existence of everything until given reason to believe otherwise.

An example: I assume the world is run through entirely regular, natural laws. My brother might assume it is run by a God who operates through those regular natural laws.

Objectively no evidence could tell our hypothese apart - everywhere we look we would merely see evidence of natural laws. So functionally our hypothese are indistinguishable. But using the principle of Occam's Razor, mine is to be preferred since it is simpler - that is, it assumes the existence of fewer entities.

Thanks for that. But why is it considered "simpler" to deny rather than assert? Either way a linguistic claim is being made and a propositional attitude assumed. Metaphysically a positive (A) seems more superfluous than a negative (not-A) but why is this? Why are negatives not just seen as another type of metaphysical claim and only apparently more parsimonious rather than structurally so. Structually a claim "it is the case that A" and the claim "it is not the case that A" have equal (yet opposite) metaphysical weight. IMO It is only an illusion that "not-A" is viewed as absolutely more parsimonious. Really it is only a prejudice that sees claims of existence, of being as "heavier" than claims of not being. Of course we are talking of importing logical assertions into our theory or world view, not physical weight as such. Logically speaking a container full of claims of "not-A's" is as full as a box of claims of "A's". I don't see how Occamite metaphysics trumps logic to be honest.

One can argue simpler means containing fewer elements. So set {a, b, c, -d, -f, -g...} is simpler than {a, b, c, d, f, g...}. But that's not that obvious to me.

 

[Giberoo]

Thanks for that. But why is it considered "simpler" to deny rather than assert? Either way a linguistic claim is being made and a propositional attitude assumed. Metaphysically a positive (A) seems more superfluous than a negative (not-A) but why is this? Why are negatives not just seen as another type of metaphysical claim and only apparently more parsimonious rather than structurally so. Structually a claim "it is the case that A" and the claim "it is not the case that A" have equal (and opposite) metaphysical weight. IMO It is only an illusion that "not-A" is viewed as absolutely more parsimonious.

A 'simpler' explanation is one which requires fewer positive claims.

Consider I might actually have 5 brothers. I think the world runs by natural laws. One thinks it's God operating through natural laws. The second thinks it's fairies operating through natural laws. The third, unicorns. The fourth, wizards. The fifth, leprichauns.

Now lets give claims a scoring system. We get one point for every positive claim ("A"). But we also, as you suggest, get a point for every negative one too ("not-A"). Add it all up, and I and all my brothers have the same number of points. I get 5 points from my 5 not-A claims, while each of my brothers has 1 A claim, and 4 not-A claims.

This effectively renders Occam's Razor ineffective. You have blunted it.

 

[variant]

*after all if neither option (A and not-A) make any difference to theory, then A is not empirically justified to be either asserted or denied a posteriori as neither option adds explanatory power or enhances pragmatic utility. And a priori, we have no logical justification to either include or exclude A either. No, the correct opinion ought to be neutral rather than unfairly biased in either direction without, strictly speaking, having adequate rational warrant. Hmmmm....

Atheism is not necessarily the assertion of ~A. Theism is definitely the assertion of A. Which prevails?

Atheism: The lack of belief in God.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Thats sounds fair, except... Is atheism also the lack of belief in not-God too? If not I think the parsimonious case is not only atheistic but also an-atheistic to coin a term. Lacking both belief in God and also lacking belief in not-God.

Otherwise, if all this is included in weak atheism, if weak atheism is also lack of belief in not-God why is that not always chosen to be stated expressly? You yourself said "lack of belief in God" and chose that side of the meaning to express. I think that it is probably either convenience, confusion or partisanship to anti-religious causes.

 

[Giberoo]

Thats sounds fair, except... Is atheism also the lack of belief in not-God too?

Atheists lack belief in Gods. That is all.

I allow God is possible, in the same way I allow dragons, fairies and Santa to be possible. I just don't believe they really exist.

To state there is definitely no Gods is to make a claim - one that needs to be supported and backed by evidence in its own right.

And it is, of course, notoriously tricky (impossible, even) to prove a negative. Which is what this claim constitutes.

 

[Gracchus]

I think Einstein expressed Occam's Razor best: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." --- Albert Einstein

Make everything as simple as... at BrainyQuote

 

[ADTClone]

Atheism is not necessarily the assertion of ~A. Theism is definitely the assertion of A. Which prevails?

Atheism: The lack of belief in God.

Following on from this, if theism is the assertion A, atheism is not ~A. Theism in the most simplest sense involves a belief in a deity. If you believe in a deity, you must believe that it exists; it necessarily follows. Atheism is the negation of theism(a-theism) in that atheists do not believe in a deity, in which it follows that they do not believe a deity exists. That does not mean they believe a deity does not exist.

The reason why "I don't believe a deity exists" and "I believe a deity does not exist" are not equivalent can be seen when looking at the nature of beliefs. In our minds, we have a belief system. For the sake of the discussion, conceptually we store beliefs in this belief system. If I believe that "god does not exist", that belief is stored in my belief system. If I "do not believe that a god exists", that belief is not stored in my belief system.

But why couldn't you store a "not belief" you may ask? This raises the issue of an infinitely large belief system, as it would require that you hold every "not belief" that could exist. Rather the more likely way in which a "not belief" is determined is by searching for the specified belief in the belief system, and if it is not found then you do not believe in it.

A final example for this is the amount of options for the statement "I believe a deity ..." when talking about its existence. There are three options(unless I'm missing one) that someone can believe in(if they believe in any at all):

1. I believe a deity exists
2. I believe a deity does not exist
3. I believe there is a possibility that a deity exists

So if I make the statement "I do not believe a deity exists", that means I could either "believe a deity does exist", "believe there is a possibility that a deity exists" or not hold any belief on the matter at all. The belief that a deity does not exist is not the only option.

Therefore "I believe ~(A exists)" is not equivalent to "I do not believe A exists".

 

[KCfromNC]

Thanks for that. But why is it considered "simpler" to deny rather than assert?

I see it less as deny and more as ignore. When working out the trajectory of an interplanetary probe, is it simpler to calculate the math using Newtonian physics, or it is simpler to use Newtonian physics plus predict the weather every day for the next two years the probe is going to be in flight? Obviously the first, and without any reason to believe that the second is going to give us a better answer to the specific problem as hand, it makes sense to ignore the weather in Palm Beach as our spacecraft is flying to Jupiter or wherever.

Likewise, until someone can show that proposed god(s) have an effect on, say, planning the capital expenses for my business this year, I'm leaving the Yaweh column of out my spreadsheet (just like I'm leaving out predictions of solar flares on a sun in a distant galaxy). That's not denying that God is certainly non-existent. it just means that I only have so much time to get the budget done and I'll never get there if I keep adding stuff which doesn't matter.

Even ignoring the question of existence and sticking to things we all agree are real, there's a basically uncountable number of things which may possibly be influencing the subject I'm interested in. Ignoring the stuff that has no known effect on what I'm working on is the only way I can ever get anything done. The only extra bit when you consider gods is that as far as we can see, they never have effects on reality.

The problem here is you're trying to draw out metaphysical or philosophical Truth(tm) from something which was never designed to produce anything of the sort. Occam's razor, and science in general, is mute on the Really Real and concerns itself with what works.

 

[quatona]

I have normally thought it to be single edged, meaning that strong atheism (God does not exist) is supported as it seems to be the simpler theory. For instance we might argue the natural may exist and then deny everything else on grounds of simplicity or parsimony.

But is that correct use of Occam's principle?

I thought: maybe "multiplying entities beyond need" which Occam advises us against means not only do not posit existent things (like Gods) without need, but also do not posit their non-existence without need?


So we are left not with an "strongly" atheistic scientific universe (so called strong atheists deny the existence of God, whereas the weak ones simply lack belief in God- see wikipedia for details).

No, rather we have one where... - [in principio (without considering further arguments)] -...one where science utilising Occam remains silent. Uncommitted either way.

Disposed to neither affirm nor deny. Such that science becomes atheistic in the weak sense of lacking belief in the existence of God. Yet also an-atheistic to coin a term, meaning lacking belief in the non existence of God (lacking belief in "not-God") too?


So the concept of 'double edged' means that Occams razor condemns not only the multiplication of existents, but also condemns the multiplication of non-existents where this is not theoretically useful and justified.

So under this lens, all else being equal given the data at hand, positing this as a universe not containing hidden angels by the trillion becomes just as imparsimonious as a universe of hidden angels in their trillions. The true solution is to not posit either way (i.e neither posit A or not-A) rather than take sides on extra-theoretical metaphysics...*

Is that in the spirit of Occam's razor?

Or if it is not classically considered double edged, has it just been snapped...? Thanks in advance for constructive thoughts...

*after all if neither option (A and not-A) make any difference to theory, then A is not empirically justified to be either asserted or denied a posteriori as neither option adds explanatory power or enhances pragmatic utility. And a priori, we have no logical justification to either include or exclude A either. No, the correct opinion ought to be neutral rather than unfairly biased in either direction without, strictly speaking, having adequate rational warrant. Hmmmm....

It seems to me that you generally misapply Occam´s Razor here: OR is about comparing the parsimony of different explanations. "God exists" and "God doesn´t exist" aren´t exlanations. They are statements, assertions.
Maybe in a certain context they are part of an explanation, though, and whether Occam´s Razor applies or not and in which way depends on what it is that is meant to be explained.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Atheists lack belief in Gods. That is all.

I allow God is possible, in the same way I allow dragons, fairies and Santa to be possible. I just don't believe they really exist.

Fair enough. But you don't believe they don't exist too, right? It seems that non religious people are biased in favour of the former (as you express it) rather than the other side of the equation. Why dont they say "the simplest explanation is to lack belief in the non-existence of God" ever?

To state there is definitely no Gods is to make a claim - one that needs to be supported and backed by evidence in its own right.

Agreed.

And it is, of course, notoriously tricky (impossible, even) to prove a negative. Which is what this claim constitutes.

I am sure that some negatives are provable, like my socks are not pink.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Even ignoring the question of existence and sticking to things we all agree are real, there's a basically uncountable number of things which may possibly be influencing the subject I'm interested in. Ignoring the stuff that has no known effect on what I'm working on is the only way I can ever get anything done. The only extra bit when you consider gods is that as far as we can see, they never have effects on reality.

Agreed, from an a posteriori, empirical perspective we need a measure of influence otherwise God seems a moot point.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

It seems to me that you generally misapply Occam´s Razor here: OR is about comparing the parsimony of different explanations. "God exists" and "God doesn´t exist" aren´t exlanations. They are statements, assertions.
Maybe in a certain context they are part of an explanation, though, and whether Occam´s Razor applies or not and in which way depends on what it is that is meant to be explained.

Ok thanks for that insight. Some people would say Gods existence can explain reality, so if we can prove God is real, we can therefore explain the being of the world we live in.

 

[quatona]

Ok thanks for that insight. Some people would say Gods existence can explain reality, so if we can prove God is real, we can therefore explain the being of the world we live in.

Well, some people have very low standards for what makes an explanation.
I suspect that this is not the context the Razor was applying to.
"God´s existence explains reality" is not an explanation. In order to even only start considering applying OR we would need to know what about reality is explained by God, how it is explained etc. etc. Next we would have to look whether there can be an explanation that works equally well without "God´s existence", and we would also have to take a close look as to whether the explanation possibly merely shifts the problem to another level (i.e. the question why something exists (how it came into existence) is not necessarily explained by postulating something else to exist).
Not until we get to the point of scrutinizing the explanation(s) OR can be brought into the equation.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Quatona I like that technicians attitude. Very focused.

 

[variant]

Thats sounds fair, except... Is atheism also the lack of belief in not-God too? If not I think the parsimonious case is not only atheistic but also an-atheistic to coin a term. Lacking both belief in God and also lacking belief in not-God.

Otherwise, if all this is included in weak atheism, if weak atheism is also lack of belief in not-God why is that not always chosen to be stated expressly? You yourself said "lack of belief in God" and chose that side of the meaning to express. I think that it is probably either convenience, confusion or partisanship to anti-religious causes.

God is not in evidence, so it doesn't require us to assert as a premise our lack beliefs in it.

I don't for instance actively disbelieve other theories about the world that are not in evidence, nor do I have to assert they are necessarily false, I simply lack belief due to lack of evidence. I am unconvinced.

String theory might be full of it, but I am not an A(string theorist) even if I do currently lack any beliefs regarding the positive truth of string theory.

Not God (~A) is not required to lack A or for saying A is not in evidence. ~~ A is A which is certainly not required to lack belief in A.

Your problem is that you think atheism is like a logical assertion or a premise, which is equivocation of any time when it is not.

The problem here is the fallacy of equivocation which muddles your entire argument.

Parsimony or Occam's razor absolutely doesn't require that we treat positive claims that are not in evidence equally with the lack of belief in positive claims that are not in evidence, to say so is the height of absurdity.

 

[Tiberius]

I thought: maybe "multiplying entities beyond need" which Occam advises us against means not only do not posit existent things (like Gods) without need, but also do not posit their non-existence without need?

I take it to mean, "Don't assume that a particular thing exists unless there is no other option."

I mean, by taking it to mean that we shouldn't assume the non-existence of things, I can use Occam's razor as a basis for my belief in snorgalumps. And, by extension, I can use Occam's Razor in this way to show that an infinite number of things exist.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I don't for instance actively disbelieve other theories about the world that are not in evidence, nor do I have to assert they are necessarily false, I simply lack belief due to lack of evidence. I am unconvinced.

But you lack belief in "god", obviously, but do you lack belief in "no god" also. Your use of simplicity seems to be biased in favour of rejecting belief in God, rather than rejecting belief in 'there is no God' too. But in the absence of evidence shouldnt your lack of belief equally cover both cases,. You said you 'do not have to assert theism is necessarily false' but what about instead of asserting such, what about merely lacking belief that theism is necessarily false? I hear SOOOOO MUCH about lacking belief in God, but hardly anything about lacking belief that there is no God. But aren't both equalty parsimonious?

Parsimony or Occam's razor absolutely doesn't require that we treat positive claims that are not in evidence equally with the lack of belief in positive claims that are not in evidence, to say so is the height of absurdity.

I think you missed my point. See above. OR look here:

One can

1)

Gb (believe G)


2)

-Gb (believe not God)


...theism (1) and strong atheism (2).

Than one can

3)

G-b (lack belief in God, weak athesism)

and finally

4)

-G-b (lack belief there is no God, what I call "an-atheism").

Atheists might say 3 is the simpler option but is 4 not as simple, but in fact rarely discussed or overtly stated as rational or parsimonious as 3?